People v. Sandoval, 26293
| Decision Date | 27 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 26293,26293 |
| Citation | 535 P.2d 1120,188 Colo. 431 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard A. SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Roy R. Martinez, Armando C. de Baca, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant Sandoval was charged with aggravated robbery and conspiracy. On arraignment, he pled not guilty to both charges. On the day the case was scheduled for trial, the district attorney moved to add a third count of simple robbery. To this count, the defendant pled guilty. Thereupon, charges of aggravated robbery and conspiracy were dismissed by the court on motion of the district attorney.
The defendant later filed a motion for withdrawal of the guilty plea and requested that his pleas of not guilty to the initial charges be reinstated. The motion alleged, among other things, that the defendant was not guilty of the crimes charged; that he had a meritorious defense; and that prior to the scheduled trial date, notice of the defense of alibi was filed with the court and served upon the district attorney. The motion further alleged that on the day of the plea of guilty, the defendant because of illness was in a weakened and confused state and did not fully comprehend the full import of his plea of guilty. All the allegations in the defendant's motion for the withdrawal of the guilty plea point to the proposition that the trial court before accepting the plea of guilty did not fully comply with the requirements of Crim.P. 11. The motion, however, did not directly allege a failure to comply with this rule.
Because the defendant at all times involved herein was represented by counsel who, according to the record, arranged a plea bargain, we have examined with utmost care the transcript of the trial court's proceedings at the time the plea of guilty was entered. This examination reflects that the trial court did not adhere to the requirements of Rule 11.
We have in a long line of cases reiterated the necessity for trial courts to adhere strictly to the requirements of Crim.P. 11 when pleas of guilty are being considered. Failure of the trial court to comply with each requirement of Crim.P. 11 affords defendants the opportunity to later challenge the trial court's refusal to permit a withdrawal of a guilty plea. See People v. Murdock, Colo., 532 P.2d 43 (1975); People v. Musser, Colo., 529 P.2d 626 (1974); People v. Keenan, Colo., 524 P.2d 604 (1974); People v. Colosacco, 177 Colo. 219, 493 P.2d 650 (1972); People v. Mason, 176 Colo. 544, 491 P.2d 1383 (1971); and People v. Riney, 176 Colo. 221, 489 P.2d 1304 (1971).
It is our view under the record of this case that the interest of justice required the trial court to grant the defendant's motion for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Because this defendant previously filed a notice of alibi defense, the trial court, in accepting the guilty plea, should have assiduously adhered to the requirements of Rule 11 and should have even made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. People
...in the decision. Specifically, the VanMeveren court relied upon three cases in support of its central holding: People v. Sandoval, 188 Colo. 431, 535 P.2d 1120 (1975); People v. Murdock, 187 Colo. 418, 532 P.2d 43 (1975); and People v. Mason, 176 Colo. 544, 491 P.2d 1383 (1971). These three......
-
People v. Cushon
...Crim.P. 11 the defendant has the right to vacation of the judgment and sentence, and withdrawal of the plea. E.g., People v. Sandoval, 188 Colo. 431, 535 P.2d 1120 (1975); People v. Randolph, No amount of explanation to the defendant of the value element of the felony theft charge can serve......
-
Mulkey v. Sullivan, 86SA118
...adhere strictly to the rule's requirements in order to show that a plea is voluntarily and intelligently made. People v. Sandoval, 188 Colo. 431, 433, 535 P.2d 1120, 1121 (1975); Canino, 181 Colo. at 211, 508 P.2d at This advisement was given to the defendant by the municipal court judge be......
-
United States v. Dace
...October 2014, the government argues that we can presume that the state court followed the applicable procedures. See People v. Sandoval, 535 P.2d 1120, 1121 (Colo. 1975) ("We have in a long line of cases reiterated the necessity for trial courts to adhere strictly to the requirements of Cri......
-
Criminal Law Newsletter
...(Univ. of Colo.) L. Rev. (1961), pp. 1, 20. 19. See, People v. Rivera, 185 Colo. 337, 524 P.2d 1083 (1974). 20. See, People v. Sandoval, 188 Colo. 431, 535 P.2d 1120 (1975). 21. People v. Kelly, 189 Colo. 31, 536 P.2d 39 (1975); Murdock, supra, note 13; People v. Brown, 187 Colo. 244, 529 P......
-
Criminal Law Newsletter
...1980). 7. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253 (1976). 8. See also, C.R.S. 1973, § 16-7-206, -207. 9. People v. Sandoval, 188 Colo. 431, 535 P.2d 1120 (1975). 10. Id. 11. Rule 5(a)(2), Colo. R. Crim. P. 12. Rule 11(b), Colo. R. Crim. P. 13. C.M.C.R. 211; R.T.V.B. 7, 8. 14. See n......